intramuralist ™ – Page 123 – A Respectful Dialogue of Current Events

10/08/201510/08/2015

AP GOV

My mother has long talked to me about the blank chalkboards in each of our lives. Here it is… behind us… blank… just waiting to be written upon. Time for new markings — sometimes with a little dust leftover from the eraser — but new markings, nonetheless. The beautiful time to write is now.

My older son no doubt felt that empowering chalkboard behind him when he left for year one in college last fall; he was well aware and excited for the unique opportunity ahead of him.

My middle son is currently sensing the chalkboard — at least politically; he’s enrolled in AP Government.

Let me first diffuse a bit of my facetious facade… JT’s class selection certainly pales in comparison to his older brother’s whole new set up and surroundings. Relevant, however, to our Intramuralist postings, my middle son is learning all about government and politics; he’s seeing the big picture — and all the little nuances — all, comprehensively, for the first time. Note: it will not be me who does the writing upon his beautiful, blank chalkboard.

He observes.
He processes.
He asks questions and more questions — and then comes to his own conclusions…

Is democracy the wisest form of government?

Do people realize that a democratic republic is different than pure democracy?

Why would someone consistently support spending more money than they take in?

What lives do we protect and what lives don’t we? Why the difference?

How is it that politicians can promise free college without a way to pay for it?

Where is the limit to taxation?

How can a person claim to be tolerant but then be intolerant of the one who thinks different than they do?

Why do these guys stay in office so long? Why are there not term limits?

What is despotism?

How involved should government be in creating social policy?

How did Christianity influence our Constitution? What was our founders’ desire?

What’s the definition of the separation of Church and State? Does it really exist?

How do people misconstrue the Constitution?

Is that Executive Order legal? Do presidents know they can’t legislate? Does the Supreme Court know they can’t legislate?

Do people realize the foolishness in politicizing EVERYTHING?

AND…

Is there anything else we should be declaring our independence from?

I’m thankful this day my son isn’t quite ready to claim full independence from me… although it’s not my job to do all the writing on his chalkboard.

The beauty is that the younger generation gets to fill it in on their own. We get the privilege of watching them grow.

Respectfully…
AR

10/06/201510/06/2015

what are we talking about?

We cry out over the killing of the innocent…

Some cried out for Matthew Shepard in ’98, beaten and tortured and left to die by two other, seemingly heartless young men, believed to have targeted Shepard because of his sexual orientation.
Most cried out on 9/11, when 2,977 people were murdered by Islamic terrorists, who specifically targeted those thousands because they lived on American soil.
And we all cried out after Charleston last June, when nine African-Americans were shot and killed while praying — at the hands of a young white man, saying he hoped to ignite a race war.

We cry out over the killing of the innocent. We even call them “hate crimes”… crimes motivated by the killer’s disdain of the different. And yet…

Last Thursday, a 26 year old, seemingly also heartless shooter, walked into Umpqua Community College in Oregon, shooting and killing nine innocent others. According to multiple reports, the shooter shot and killed those who identified themselves as Christians.

And what does our current national dialogue seem to be centered on?

Gun control.

From the Intramuralist’s vantage point — which admittedly, is a limited point of view — as each of ours is — here we have another awful, horrendous mass shooting… another incident in which the innocent die young. But unlike Matthew Shepard’s death — where we talked about the callousness and cruelty of a man killed because he was gay… and unlike the scene inside Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston last summer — where we talked about the callousness and cruelty of men and women killed because they were black… instead of talking about the callousness and cruelty of college students being killed because they are Christians, we talk most about gun control. Something doesn’t make sense.

Make no mistake about it; gun control is an issue worth discussing. It is an issue worth discussing after each of these tragedies; none of us wish to feel this way again. But if the conversation after Oregon focuses more on gun control than on the motive for the shooting, we are omitting an inconvenient truth. The students at Umpqua were killed because they admitted a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Then I take note of what’s happening around the world…

ISIS kills many; they kill many solely because they admit to being Christians.
I see Christians persecuted in North Korea, Somalia, and Iraq.
Christians are also often targeted in Africa — in Egypt, Kenya, and Nigeria.
They are targeted, too, in Afghanistan and Syria.

In other words, like it or not, ignore it or not, people who believe that God so loved the world that he sent Jesus to this planet to be their one and only saving grace, are being targeted in increasingly, multiple countries.

And only sometimes, we talk about it.

Let me say again that I have no issue when in response to tragedy, we respectfully debate what aspects of gun control are most effective. I also have no issue discussing the seemingly heartless targeting of innocent persons because they are gay or because they are black or because of some other, isolated factor; that targeting is — in my totally respectful, semi-humble opinion — wrong.

I do have issue, however, with the arbitrary acknowledgment of hate crimes. I have issue when we ignore the reason a man or woman was killed was because they had put their faith in Jesus. There exists an all too selective silence. I wonder why.

Respectfully…
AR

10/04/201510/04/2015

curbing the violence

Another shooting. Another predictable, rhetorical cycle. It goes something like this:

There is too much violence!
When are we going to stop this?!
We need more gun control!
No, we don’t!
Yes, we do!
No, we don’t!
Yes, we do!

And hence, the disrespectful debate continues. We have lots of admirably passionate leaders and individuals, but the issue is never adequately solved.

My strong sense is that the issue of curbing gun violence is never adequately solved because we never deal with all that influences the issue. We rant and rave and pick and choose what aspect to jump on; we fulminate on Facebook or utilize Twitter to take others to task… “When will this stop?!” That’s the main idea; we want it to stop. Save for a less honorable few, yes, we all want it to stop.

But we tend to harp on aspects nearer and dearer to our hearts; we tend to repeat angles consistent with our favorite partisan proclamations. We blame people, presidents, and police. We blame groups and gangs who we perceive to most contribute to the existence of gun violence. We tend to emphasize singular aspects while ignoring other aspects — as opposed to wrestle with and acknowledge all angles of the problem. Such as (in alphabetical order):

1. Evil
2. Gangs
3. Law
4. Lobbyists
5. Mental health
6. Movies
7. Rap music
8. Sin
9. Terrorism
10. Video games

And more.

Many will address only one of the above. Addressing only one aspect, however, seems a futile attempt to adhere a tiny, tiny Band-Aid on a pulsating, gaping wound — that will thus continue to bleed. The Band-Aid makes us feel better… but it isn’t effective.

For example, many will understandably direct their angst toward the lobbyists — at the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), suggesting the group’s approximate $3 million dollars spent annually distorts the legislative process. Many simultaneously ignore that the NRA isn’t included in the top 20 spenders — and were also silent when the American Medical Association (AMA) influenced healthcare and the National Association of Realtors (NAR) influenced mortgage lending legislation. AMA has spent $19.5 million and the NAR has spent near $16 million this year thus far. (Note that the Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest lobbyist spender, has spent $42 million in 2015.) We need to be consistent in our cries out against lobbyists’ influence — a stated passion of the Intramuralist.

Others examples of addressing singular aspects are seen in how some only focus on the perceived sins of the shooter — ignoring the potential mental health component or illness. Others still, will focus only on mental health — ignoring how evil so obviously permeates this world.

Forget not the impact of the music, movie, and gaming industries. Amazon, Forbes, and USA Today all show lists of the most popular video games dominated by celebrated violence.

I wonder, too, if the gunman’s motives are relevant… The shooter at Umpqua Community College in Oregon last week, for example, killed people because they were Christians. Said one witness via Twitter, if they were Christian, “Then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs.” Seems like gun control isn’t the only issue here. Can we honestly wrestle with the religious persecution? Maybe the motive is the bigger picture.

My point today, friends, is that there are all sorts of angles and approaches when considering the violence on this planet. We have a desire to curb it, to stop it. But unless we are willing to wrestle with and acknowledge the totality of the problem — and the entire bigger picture — our efforts, as good and passionate as they may sound, may remain sadly futile.

Respectfully…
AR

10/01/201510/01/2015

voting guide

No one should tell any of the rest of us how to vote. So let me try. 🙂

I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they are a woman or a man. I, like you, have many female and male friends, and it is a fact that their gender does not automatically make them capable — or incapable — of being a wise President.

I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they are black. Nope. I, like most of you, have friends who are black, white, Hispanic, Asian, etc. Their race has not made any of them more — or less — qualified to be President.

I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they have no political experience. Let’s face it; many of the elect have had substantial, lengthy political resumes. Resumes do not necessarily equate to wisdom nor success; resumes do not teach them how to work with other parties nor people. Hence, a political resume will not automatically garner my vote.

I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they are a Christian or faithfully adhere to some other religion. I’ve known far too many who pick and choose which aspects of their faith to serve and observe. I’ve known far too many believers and non-believers alike whose arrogance and lack of humility was a clear, non-permeable obstruction to effective leadership.

I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they are a Democrat or Republican. I realize this may get somewhat trickier, but the reality is we have witnessed far too many on both sides of the proverbial, partisan aisle who have been either narcissistic, crooked, or both — none of which, with all due respect, is worthy of representing me. Sharing similar political leanings is simply not enough.

Hence, I will not vote for or against anyone solely because of their gender, race, religion, party, or other demographic factor.   I will, however, vote for the following:

(1) Someone, as best as possible, that I believe to be ethical.

(2) Someone, as best as possible, who has demonstrated sound comprehension of economic principles. And…

(3) Someone, as best as possible, with whom I agree on multiple policy issues (…notice that I didn’t say “all” nor a single, specific one.)

In that order. That’s it.

If a person isn’t perceived to be ethical, then I cannot discern accurately whether they truly comprehend the economy. If a person isn’t perceived to be ethical, then I cannot discern accurately whether we agree on policy positions — or if they are flip-flopping, evolving, or what. If a person isn’t perceived to be ethical, I cannot trust them to tell me the truth.

I want a candidate whose “yes” means “yes” and whose “no” means “no.” I want a person who will say what they think — as opposed to say what they think I want them to. This means more to me than consensus and agreement. (Note that I have yet to find a person with whom I agree on all things… not even in my own household.)

Too ideal for today’s culture? Too ideal for a culture where partisan politicians incite and divide more than listen and unite? Too ideal for a culture infused with a biased, 24 hour news cycle?

Back to that ideal candidate…

Did I mention I’d also like them to be a Bengals fan, support Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame, and believe Tom Brady should be suspended for “Deflategate”?

Ok… maybe I am an idealist after all.

Respectfully…
AR

09/29/201509/29/2015

ad hominem

[Full disclosure notice: the point of this post will not come until the very end; if no interest in politics this day — and believe me, I get that — feel free to skip to the final paragraph.]

Milli Vanilli told us to “Blame It on the Rain.”
Michael Caine and company told us to “Blame It on Rio.”
The second season of “Glee” told us to “Blame It on the Alcohol.”
Conveniently targeted others include the night, Bossa Nova, and the Boogie.

Multiple times over the past 7 years, the Intramuralist has made mention of ad hominem attacks. It seems the topic continues to be relevant.

According to Merriam-Webster, “ad hominem” means:
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect; or…
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

According to Urban Dictionary (because it’s typically much more entertaining), “ad hominem” means: “An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their argument or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.”

In Latin, “ad hominem” means “against the man.” In other words, instead of honestly wrestling with the validity of an accusation, in an ad hominem attack, the responder attempts to shift the focus onto “the man” who asked — getting the focus off of self and hoping to shift the focus elsewhere, thereby never having to actually wrestle with the potential validity of the accusation.

Let the Intramuralist go out on a limb by making the following assertion: ad hominem attacks are alive and well on planet Earth today. When faced with damaging accusations, many have no desire to wrestle with the truth; they instead work to intentionally focus attention elsewhere.

While considering revisiting this too common topic, I ironically awoke to the following headline extracted from the Sunday news shows: “Bill Clinton Blames G.O.P. and Press for Wife’s Email Woes.”

First, for full disclosure, it is a known caveat that the Intramuralist desires someone other than a Bush or Clinton in the White House this time around. I mean no disrespect; I simply believe someone new and fresh has greater potential to lead and unite our country at this time.

Second, consistent with our values, I desire to wrestle with and promote what is good and true and right.

And third, referencing the facts, as reported by numerous news outlets — left, right, and no-bias whatsoever (if that actually exists) — there are multiple activities and comments by Hillary Clinton herself that do not fit together. Some statements are contradictory; some seem like lies. The FBI is even involved. In other words, Hillary Clinton’s own behavior has contributed to her current predicament. She is declining in popularity. She is being perceived as significantly, increasingly untrustworthy.

So what does Hillary’s spouse do? Blame someone else.

Let’s be honest in acknowledging that there is no doubt that multiple persons have zero desire to see Hillary Clinton win the White House; some will do whatever they (hopefully only) legally can to deter her. There are also persons doing whatever they (again, hopefully only) legally can to deter a Carson, Fiorina, etal. presidency. But what Bill Clinton does in his comments is a clear attempt to redirect the focus, ignoring how Hillary and her campaign have significantly, negatively contributed to her downward slide.

Let’s also not be too hard on Bill. I respect his loyalty, and I have minimal doubt he is alone in his semi-valiant attempts to get the rest of us to focus elsewhere. My small sense, in fact, is that one Mr. Donald Trump may also be well-versed in this disingenuous tactic. In my desire for all that is good and true and right, however, I wish that far fewer candidates would be so well-versed.

(…and the main point of today’s post?) Be prepared. Keep watching. We only have another 405 days until the actual election. (Sigh.)

Respectfully…
AR

09/27/2015

omission

Except for all those with their laptops, TV’s, and portable electronic devices turned off last week, we were well aware of Pope Francis interacting with leaders and little ones, for the first time on American soil. From DC to NYC to his departure this night from Philadelphia, the Pope has called the people to something. That’s what’s fascinating — how we summarize that “something.”

People pounce on what they want to. They summarize the Pope’s message — characterizing and crafting the Pope’s exhortation in unique, albeit limited ways. Note the specific characterizations and summaries in recent days…

The editorial board of the NY Times laid out what they called, the Pope’s “challenge to America” — saying American leaders “must never forget the nation’s own roots of tolerance and equal justice.” They said Pope Francis called for “rational and just treatment of refugees here and abroad” in a veiled “rebuke” to some of the “ugly diatribes” amid the current presidential campaign.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said the Pope is “urging us to make the changes we need to protect our earth, and to treat all people with compassion and dignity,” entitling his CNN editorial “the moral call for equality.”

Reuters led a report with Pope Francis’ call for “world leaders to do more to combat climate change.”

Laurie Goodstein, also of the NY Times, said, “Francis on Friday called on the hundreds of leaders from the world’s religions who surrounded him to be a ‘force for reconciliation.’ ”

And still more from the articulate Times headlined their summary of the Pope’s message as a call “for peace and environmental justice.”

Not to be out articulated by the more issue-oriented angles, the Intramuralist also read the following politicized headlines:

“The Pope’s Progressive Call to Action”
“Pope Francis’ Speech Is a Win for Progressives”
“Pope Francis Calls Out the ‘Industry of Death’ ”
“The Patron Saint of the Left”
(And, perhaps shocking to some) “Top Signs Pope Francis is an Honest Conservative”

What I observe is a desire to politicize the Pope’s message. Granted, Pope Francis has invited much of the deliberation, as he has publicly articulated various political positions. But let’s acknowledge what’s missing from each of the above characterizations.  ..

Pope Francis serves as the 266th and current Pope of the Catholic Church. The worldwide Catholic Church teaches that it was founded by Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the foundation of what the Roman Catholic Church believes.

What’s missing in each of the above editorials?

Any mention of Jesus.

While there’s much to like and discuss in the editorialized calls for justice, compassion, dignity, reconciliation, and peace, if Jesus is omitted from the conversation, then my sense is that we are not summarizing the Pope’s message accurately; we are crafting characterizations based more on our desired perspective than on the Pope’s actual words. We are politicizing something that should not be politicized.

Note that in New York, the Pope called on people to spread the Word of God; he urged listeners to be faithful, holding onto the hope God provides. He also, when first arriving, encouraged clergy to walk humbly with their God — all messages consistent with scripture.

Pope Francis believes that the kingdom he serves is not “of this world.” He believes in Jesus, and his belief propels his perspective. Sometimes we forget that. We conveniently omit it, too.

Respectfully…
AR

09/24/201509/24/2015

ask the pope

For the first time, Pope Francis, the leader of the Catholic Church, is walking on American soil. And so I asked you, if you could ask him a single question — concisely and respectfully — with great wit always welcome — what would your question be? Here are your top 50…

What is love?
How can I pray for you?
Do you pray for world peace?
Can you explain free will?
Which came first — the chicken or the egg?
What’s your most embarrassing moment?
Who do you think will be the religious leader in the end times?
Do you ever get depressed or feel overwhelmed by the sadness and violence in the world?
Who’s your favorite NFL team? Do you ever pay attention?
What makes you so forward thinking and accepting?
How do you feel when the Ten Commandments or a Nativity scene is ordered to be removed?
When the Bible speaks of “the great prostitute,” to whom do you think it is referring?
What is the ideal role between church and state?
If you could be a rockstar, who would you be and why?
What’s more important to you personally: the Bible or tradition?
How would you diffuse the racial tensions in this country?
Do you know how to use an iPhone?
What are the absolutes in life?
How have the political left and right marginalized God’s Word?
Why does the Catholic Church believe that Mary was immaculately conceived when there is no supporting Biblical passage?
What do you do when it all gets too much?
How do you respond to the person who says “I was born this way”?
“Tastes great” or “less filling”?
Do you believe Islam is a peaceful religion?
What are you doing here?
What’s your favorite book in the Bible?
What do you really think of Pres. Obama?
Do you believe Christianity is “under attack”?
Is world peace possible this side of heaven?
Is it ok not to be Catholic?
What would you say those at a #BlackLivesMatter protest?
Do you think our police have a problem — or some have a problem with police?
Why are you talking about climate change instead of The Gospel?
Do you enjoy wearing what looks like a dress all the time?
What’s the biggest problem in the American church today?
Can you explain why so many use religion as a justification for war, violence, judgment, and other forms of hatred throughout the world?
Coke or Pepsi?
What do we not realize about abortion?
Have you considered changing tradition to allow priests to marry?
Why does the Catholic Church prohibit women from the priesthood? …do you see this ever changing?
How serious do you believe the threats to religious liberty are in this country?
Which candidate for President do you like best?
What do you think about Donald Trump?
If you had a tattoo, where would it be, what would it say, and why?
Do you believe our country is spiraling morally out of control?
Do you wear pants?
What do you struggle with?
What do you want your legacy to be? …what do you believe God wants your legacy to be?
What is the number one thing we can do to honor God?

And… last but not least…

50. Do you think Pope jokes are funny??

Respectfully…
AR

09/22/201509/22/2015

biased?

We are a contentious people. We disagree. We argue. Sometimes we fight… a lot. Why? Because we know we’re right. 🙂

I get it. There have been times in my own household — I’m sorry to admit — when it’s seemed a major, humongous decision between which one is best — because there’s only one right answer: sausage or pepperoni? (My poor veggie choice rarely garners another vote.) The reality is, friends, we think there’s only one answer too many times… and we make way too many mountains out of molehills.

Part of the reason we get so stuck, I think — and then miss out on the beauty of turning disagreement into dialogue — is because we’re unwilling to unravel our deeply embedded bias. We each have bias within us, and that bias skews our objectivity… whether we know it or not… acknowledge it or not… no matter the issue.

“Bias” is defined as “prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.”

For example, one may believe Tom Brady’s explanation of why he destroyed his cell phone when under investigation by the NFL was completely logical, plausible, and full of good intentions. Others immediately pounced upon the need for stern prosecution.

Politically, some watched the Republican debates, and instantaneously concluded that each of the candidates is an honest, upstanding, completely transparent man or woman. Others claimed the debates were pathetic — and nothing of merit was articulated by any or all.

Think, too, of our immediate reactions — openly hostile or sweetly tender — directed at Hillary, Bernie, or Trump… at Christians, Congress, Planned Parenthood, you-name-it.

I submit that in each of the above, bias has typically skewed the perspective… whether we know it or not. Hence, allow me one more, brief example (I will try to be sensitive)…

America’s favorite sport by far is the National Football League. When the playoffs begin, so do the parties — with even the non-sports fan often tuning in. Last January, there was one game that grabbed my attention most (remember: this is about bias — not sports). The Dallas Cowboys and Green Bay Packers played a great game on a cold day up in Wisconsin. Dallas led most of the game but never by more than 8 points.

With 9 minutes left, the Packers finally took the lead. Dallas would challenge once more. Back and forth after an intense drive, it appeared that the Cowboys’ Dez Bryant made a miraculous, fourth down catch and scored the potentially winning touchdown!

But then… as written by a Sports Illustrated reporter:

“On fourth down with 4:42 remaining, Bryant leapt to catch a pass from Tony Romo. On the way down, as he moved toward the end zone, the ball hit the ground. After review, the referees called it an incomplete pass.
NFL rules state the ground can cause an incomplete pass. It was ruled Bryant did not stretch out enough toward the endzone, therefore did not commit a ‘football act,’ and didn’t have control going to the ground.”

The referees reversed their initial call. The home crowd went crazy. The Packers took over on offense and went on to win the game.

From my very comfortable, couch-quarterback position, I adamantly disagreed with the call — and I soon found myself also in disagreement with multiple members of my family. They thought they were right! I thought I was right! But guess what? They are Packers’ fans.

There was… uh… one more thing…

Every football season I play a few, minimally-involved fantasy games. One requires a $10 entry fee, where each week you pick a single football team to win their game, and you can’t pick the same team twice. When your selection loses, you’re out. Over 200 people play. At the time of that playoff game, I was still alive. Had the Cowboys won, I was close to winning the $2000 prize. 

Was I biased? You bet.
Did it skew my perspective of what may or may not be true? Of course.
And could I admit it at the time?

No way.

Bias obstructs truth. It impedes our dialogue, too.

Respectfully…
AR

09/20/201509/20/2015

amazing

When my youngest son was born, we were greeted by all the plethora of standard congratulatory salutations. But there’s something when a child is born with a disability that threatens to damper what should be none other than a celebration… “Yes, I’m humbled and thrilled at the birth of my child and God’s incredible creation — but I have to change my expectations. This isn’t the life I had planned… not for him… not for me.” I didn’t say that. But I thought it… often.

And no doubt due to the totally penetrating grace of God — even when I am clueless — I quickly realized that the blessing of Josh was no less than any other. He was amazing — just the way he was… just the way he is.

While I got there emotionally — with my dear family and friends who “came along” — it was soon apparent that not everyone else in contemporary culture gets that. There was the geneticist who referred to the day of Josh’s birth as “the saddest day of your whole life.” There was the one resident, callously mumbling after a broken finger that it “wasn’t like he’s ever going to play in the orchestra or anything.” And there were the many who made well-intentioned stabs at encouragement by saying Josh could grow up and “get a great job” bagging at the local grocery store.

I chose not to focus on those who weren’t where I was. I knew God was calling me to a wiser perspective… that it was not up to me to decide what my kids could and could not do. It was not up to me to dictate. It was not up to me to focus only on the perceived end results. It was, however, up to me to celebrate who my son was, how God uniquely wired him, and to encourage him to grow.

Josh is in 8th grade now. (Careful — he thinks being the oldest grade in school is akin to something close to “king.”) But as one who has watched his older brothers thrive in one of Ohio’s premiere show choir organizations, Josh decided last week to try out at the junior high level.

Truthfully, I was a bit skeptical at first. The bar is high, and it should be for such a talented organization. But if I was completely transparent, I would also acknowledge that I was weary of the time commitment required on my part — early a.m. practices, multiple week night practices, and all the supervision necessary, so as not to add more to the director’s already, admirably full plate.   And so we spent Monday – Friday last week at show choir tryouts… up at 5:40 a.m., getting Josh ready, grabbing breakfast, downing the protein, and out the door by 6:30 in order to arrive at least 15 minutes early. We also practiced each night at home, worked on his dance moves, his vocals — with Dad and big brother joining along.

Let me add that initially, Josh didn’t comprehend the idea of a “try out.” He assumed everyone made it. I was worried about that lack of realization — that is, until Thursday, when on our way, he prayed, “And God, I know you have my back, whether I make it or not.”    I loved that.

So each morning the 80 some adolescents worked on the newly taught choreography. They danced as a group before the director and judges. I was there in case Josh needed anything. His teacher also graciously volunteered to come in early multiple days, helping with any supervision. (She is excellent — love our community!!) Then on Friday, it was Josh’s turn to actually sing before the judges — only 10-20 seconds. All students sit still while only one sings.

From this semi-humble parent’s vantage point, Josh’s singing was excellent. His enunciation was a little off — maybe his tone a bit, too — but nothing took away from the beauty of his words. As for his dancing ability, he was a half second or two behind on several of the synchronized moves; sometimes, too, he turned in the wrong direction, but he got it. That boy can dance!

Let me briefly share that Josh didn’t make it. I have great respect for the director, so please, no sighs; we had a great week! Let me also share, though, what I learned…

I was first reminded of that perspective I believe God desires us to have — to celebrate who each of our kids are, how God uniquely wires them, and to encourage them to grow.
Second, I learned that we often put too much emphasis on the end results; the process — and the growth in that process — is without a doubt, beautiful.

And lastly, I was struck most by Josh’s own words — words that are true. Loudly and proudly, with all others sitting and listening, my sweet son, Josh, sang the chorus from “Just the Way You Are” by Bruno Mars…

“When I see your face
There’s not a thing that I would change
Because you’re amazing
Just the way you are.”

Amazing. Smiling. Just the way he is. Again, it is he who teaches me.

With great joy…
AR

09/17/201509/17/2015

wanted: better leaders

Three were land surveyors.
Six were one time farmers.
Many more served honorably in our country’s military.

Yet somewhere over the course of our nation’s history, we have come to value — and perhaps “trump” (bwa ha ha) — the resume of a career politician. I’m wondering if that’s wise. I don’t think I’m alone.

With the 21 persons currently running for the 2016 Presidency of the United States of America (both major parties combined), I am especially struck by a unique three: Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and Donald Trump. Please don’t mistake my fascination for advocacy. But even before last night’s second active, insightful debate, I have been struck by the fact that none of the three boast a resume touting political experience — and each has a formidable following in these continued early polls. Trump and Fiorina have successful business track records. Carson is a respected neurosurgeon. The fact that many are increasingly attracted to these three candidates in particular tells us that there exists something within a growing set of voters that wants something other than a career politician in the White House.

Note…

Warren Harding ran a newspaper.
Herbert Hoover was an engineer.
Truman spent years as a men’s clothing retailer.

Lyndon Johnson was a teacher.
So were Chester Arthur and James Garfield; Garfield doubled as a minister.
And Ronald Reagan — revered by many on both sides of the proverbial partisan aisle — and before serving as California’s governor — was best known previously as an actor and President of the Screen Actors Guild.

We have long been attracted to persons of diverse, varied, life experience.

But somewhere along the line, we began valuing not only career politicians, but also, attorneys. 24 — yes, 24 — current or former U.S. Presidents are or were lawyers at one time. No doubt the ability to navigate through lawsuits and a fluency in legalese are helpful skills to bring to the Oval Office, but what have we sacrificed by valuing these skills so highly? Are we missing something? Are we trumping the wrong things within leadership?

I’m thinking we need something more…

… more than the ability to splice and couch words and navigate through legalese…

And … far more than someone who simply uses one election to propel them to the next…

Where is, my friends, is the servant leader?

A servant leader is a person who always enriches the lives of other people. “I/me/my/myself” are not routine nor frequent words in their vocabulary. It’s not about them gaining more influence or power. It’s not about them doing all the directing. It’s not about them proclaiming how wonderful or altruistic they are. It’s not about them and all they alone have to give. It’s not about them and how brilliant and omniscient they are. It’s not about their programs, their policies, or their self-proclaimed political giftedness. In other words, it’s not — and never — about them. A servant leader knows that. A servant leader never confuses serving the people with the propelling of self.

My sense — and I could be wrong — is that the career politician has trouble recognizing that it’s not (and never has been) about them. Maybe that’s harsh; that’s not my intent. But it’s almost as if the career politician feels they have to serve; they must do this — as if we can’t survive without them. I would add that after years of obvious, ongoing futility and ineffective government — a problem caused and contributed to by both parties — the public is tired; we are looking for something more.

We want authenticity. I think we want servanthood, too.

Can that be found in a businessman/woman or neurosurgeon? Who knows. Some of the more loquacious candidates (or at least one in particular 🙂 ) still seem way too comfortable with those “I/me/my/myself” pronouns.

But the rise of the non-politician — and the non-attorney — tells me many are searching for something better and more… and more effective.

Respectfully…
AR